Designs 
for  H ouses  of 


ft 


Indiana  Limestone 


Being  the  best  designs  submitted  in 
"a  competition  for  a detached  resi- 
dence, faced  with  Indiana  Limestone 
conducted  by  The  Architectural  Review 


ALBERT  HARKNESS, 
ARCHITECT 
107  WESTMINSTER  ST. 
PROVIDENCE,  R.  1. 


Volume  27 

of  tke  Lib  rary  Series  Published  by 
Indiana  Limestone  Quarrymen  s Association 
O.  Box  400,  Bedford,  In  diana 


I 


■ 


fM£KY  LIBRARY  V 

COlljUBlA  UtUYERSW 


DESIGNS  for  HOUSES 

built  of 

INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


Reprinted  from 

A SPECIAL  ISSUE  of 
THE  ARCHITECTURAL  REVIEW 


Comprising  twenty-one  of 
the  best  designs  submitted 

in  the 

Indiana  Limestone 
House  Competition 

Including  the  PRIZE,  MENTION 
and  certain  other  drawings  selected 
for  publication,  and  extract  from 
the  Report  of  the  Jury  of  Award 


Uolume  27  Series  B 

INDIANA  LIMESTONE  LIBRARY 
4th  Edition  September  1922 


Indiana  Limestone  Quarrymen's  Association 

BEDFORD,  INDIANA 


What  Is  Indiana  Limestone? 


EVERYWHERE  in  America  w here  good  archi- 
j lecture  exists  the  stone  residence  stands  out 
serenely  superior  to  its  tellows  built  of  lesser  materials. 
The  desirability  of  the  stone  house  hardly  needs  an 
advocate.  A great  majority  of  the  finest  homes  in  the 
land  are  of  stone  (a  host  of  them  Indiana  Limestone), 
and  the  builder  ot  a moderate-priced  home  is  de- 
terred from  using  stone  usually  only  by  what  he 
conceives  to  be  the  prohibitive  price  of  stone.  And, 
no  doubt  because  of  the  imposing  effect  of  even  a 
small  Indiana  Limestone  building,  he  has  presumed 
Indiana  Limestone  to  be  a costly  building  material. 

Fortunately,  for  those  who  appreciate  beauty  and 
permanence  this  is  not  so.  Indiana  Limestone, 
“The  Aristocrat  of  Building  Materials,”  is  both  low 
in  price  among  stones,  and  moderate  in  cost  when 
compared  with  other  building  materials  and  is  within 
reach  of  the  home  builder  of  moderate  means.  Lay 
your  building  problem  before  an  architect,  who  is 
familiar  with  the  characteristics  of  Indiana  Lime- 
stone and  he  can  design  you  a dignified  home  which 
will  cost  but  little  more  in  this  beautiful,  natural 
stone  than  ii  built  of  other  less  permanent  material. 

The  reason  for  this  lies  in  the  truly  unique  endow- 
ment ot  Nature,  which  has  bestowed  an  abundance 
of  this  material,  having  beauty  along  with  strength, 
and  every  desirable  physical  quality  usually  associated 
with  great  rarity,  combined  with  ease  of  access. 

Indiana  Limestone  is  obtained  only  in  two  counties 
of  the  State  of  Indiana;  yet  in  those  two  counties  it 
lies  in  an  enormous  deposit  extending  over  an  area 
for  miles  and  miles,  and  is  quarried  in  great  uniform 
masses.  It  is  not  very  hard  as  it  lies  in  the  ground  anti 
therefore  can  be  quarried  by  machinery  in  blocks  of 
any  size  that  a derrick  can  lift,  after  which  it  is  cut  up 
and  shipped  to  all  parts  of  the  United  States  and 
Canada  with  the  same  ease  and  speed  of  handling 
throughout  as  with  other  highly  developed  manufac- 


tures. The  whole  production  process  is  carried  on  by 
machinery  and  is  more  like  modern  large-scale  manu- 
facturing than  ordinary  quarrying. 

Indiana  Limestone  is  very  easily  worked, — 
sawn,  planed,  turned,  and  carved, — another  thing 
that  operates  to  keep  its  price  within  the  reach  of 
moderate  means. 

As  a result  of  all  this,  Indiana  Limestone  has 
become  something  no  other  stone  could  possibly 
become, — a real  National  Standard  building  material, 
and  is  justly  termed  The  Nation’s  Buiedino  Stone. 

Millions  of  cubic  feet  ol  it  are  used  each  year,  and 
there  is  not  a State  in  the  Union  which  has  not  a 
multitude  o!  buildings,  public  and  private,  great  and 
small,  built  of  this  fine  natural  stone. 

In  color,  Indiana  Limestone  offers  a choice  among 
BUFF  (a  yellowish  gray),  GRAY  (a  silvery  gray), 
and  VARIEGATED  (a  mixture  ot  the  two).  Its 
general  tone  when  in  place  in  a building  is  of  a 
misty  delicacy.  Its  texture  while  generally  rather 
fine,  varies  Irom  very  fine  to  somewhat  granular, 
making  possible  a variety  of  textural  effects,  and 
its  structure,  whether  in  the  finer  or  coarser,  is 
always  homageneous  or  massive-  that  is,  without 
strata,  or  layers. 

Every  well-designed  house  built  of  this  beautiful 
stone  is  pervaded  by  an  indescribable  effect  of 
solidity  and  permanence,  a well-established  home- 
likeness plus  a certain  opulence  or  comfort  well 
provided  for — the  ideal  toward  which  all  ambitious 
home-builders  instinctively  aspire.  One  of  the  most 
effective  steps  you  can  make  in  the  direction  of  this 
ideal  is  to  provide  yourself  with  full  knowledge  of 
Indiana  Limestone,  its  possibilities  and  its  low  cost. 
To  this  end  you  should  read  Volume  I of  the  Indiana 
Limestone  Library,  which  will  be  sent  free  on 
request. 


Indiana  Limestone  Ouarrymen’s 

P.  O.  Box  400  Bedford, 


Association 

Indiana 


The  Architectural  Review 

Volume  V (Old  Series,  Vol.  XXII)  September,  1917  Number  9 


A Competition  tor  a Detached  Residence  of  Indiana  Limestone 

Reprinted  from  the  Report  of  the  Jury  of  Award 

Messrs.  Franklin  Abbott,  J.  E.  R.  Carpenter,  Ralph  Adams  Cram,  Charles  Z.  Klauder,  and  Richard  E.  Schmidt 

Announcing  the  Results  of  the  Competition,  Accompanied  by  a Reproduction  of 
the  Prize,  Mention  and  Certain  Selected  Designs 

A Summary  of  the  Program 


Till!  program  required  a design  for  a detached 
residence,  suitable  to  the  requirements  of  an 
ordinary  American  family,  with  the  outer  walls  faced 
with  4-inch  ashlar  of  Indiana  Limestone. 

The  location  was  an  inside  lot  having  a frontage 
ol  100  feet  and  a depth  of  150  feet,  with  a restriction 
set-back  of  30  feet  from  the  street  and  10  feet  from 
each  side  lot  line, — beyond  which  restricted  area, 
however,  the  porches  could  approach  toward  the 
street  line.  The  lot  had  a slight  pitch  along  the 
street  trontage,  and  the  land  rose  about  10  feel 
gradually  towards  the  rear,  which  faced  a little  west 
of  north,  leaving  the  front  towards  the  street  as 
south,  southeast. 

The  required  drawings  included  a perspective; 
first  and  second  floor  plans;  two  elevations;  a cross 
section;  and  a detailed  drawing  of  the  entrance- 
door,  a typical  bay  or  porch,  with  a detail  of  a lime- 
stone fireplace  and  a choice  of  profile  sections.  The 
competitors  were  also  required  to  use  limestone  on 
the  staircase  hall  and  vestibule  floors,  and  indicate 
the  scheme  for  its  employment  on  the  floor  plan. 
In  order  to  keep  the  house  within  reasonable  limits 
of  cost,  the  floor  area  was  set  at  1,300  square  feet, 


allowing  an  additional  100  square  feet  for  an  enclosed 
porch  or  200  feet  additional  for  an  open  porch, 
while  the  height  from  basement  floor  to  attic  floor 
was  not  to  exceed  27  feet. 

The  Jury  was  composed  of  Messrs.  Franklin 
Abbott,  ol  Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  J.  E.  R.  Carpenter,  of 
New  York  City;  Ralph  Adams  Cram,  of  Boston; 
Charles  Z.  Klauder,  of  Philadelphia  (who  kindly 
consented  to  take  Mr.  Albert  Kahn’s  place,  as  Mr. 
Kahn  was,  at  the  last  moment,  prevented  by  camp 
construction  work  in  the  vicinity  of  Detroit  from 
attending  the  session  of  the  Jury  on  the  date  selected) ; 
and  Richard  E.  Schmidt,  of  Chicago,  111. 

The  competition  closed  on  July  2,  1917,  and  after 
the  drawings  had  been  opened,  numbered,  and 
checked,  the  Jury  met  at  Nantucket,  Mass.,  on 
July  31  and  August  1,  where  they  considered  all 
the  plans  submitted  on  the  basis  of  the  excellence 
and  originality  of  the  design  and  its  appropriateness 
to  the  chosen  material,  the  convenience  and  arrange- 
ment of  the  plan,  and  the  ingenuity  shown  in  the 
use  of  the  material,  and,  finally,  the  practical  possi- 
bility of  building  the  house  for  somewhere  near  the 
established  limit  ol  cost. 


An  Introduction  by  the  Jury 


After  enjoying  the  opportunity  ol  examining  the 
designs  submitted  in  this  Competition  for  a Lime- 
stone House,  the  Jury  cannot  help  but  be  both 
impressed  and  gratified  at  the  wide  geographic 
interest  shown  in  the  somewhat  unusual  problem 
established  by  the  program  published  by  The 
Architectural  Review.  After  their  judgment  had 
been  made,  the  Jury  found  that  the  drawings  had 
come  from  every  part  of  the  United  Stales,  and  even 
from  Canada;  showing  a gratifying  general  interest 
in  the  problem, — and  a more  than  gratifying  ambi- 
tion, on  the  part  of  both  draughtsmen  and  archi- 
tects,— to  see  what  they  could  do  with  the  problem 


in  design  that  thus  inspiringly  differed  lrom  the 
ordinarv  run  of  problems  with  which  most  of  them 
would  have  to  do  in  their  usual  practice. 

Of  the  total  number  ol  designs  submitted,  the 
Jury  were  able  immediately  to  sort  out  some  forty 
or  fifty  drawings,  which  were  unquestionably  well 
above  the  average  of  merit  disclosed  by  the  Competi- 
tion, as  being  worthy  of  the  most  careful  analysis, 
in  order  to  give  them  their  due  consideration  for 
prize  position  or  mention.  Of  these,  at  least  thirty- 
designs  showed  that  practically  all  their  authors 
understood  to  a notable  degree  the  nature  of  the 
material  involved,  and  handled  it  with  a surprising 


4 


and  easily  apparent  familiarity  with  its  possibilities, 
artistic,  structural,  and  mechanical. 

If  any  further  explanation  is  necessary  or  desirable, 
it  might  be  said  that  the  Jury  finally  assorted,  from 
these  thirty  or  more  designs,  a set  of  twenty;  and 
from  these  a final  set  of  ten;  and  that,  while  all  the 
premiated  designs  in  this  set  of  ten  were — in  the 
opinion  of  the  Jury — easily  superior  to  those  that 
remain  unmentioned,  yet  that  five  or  six  of  the 
designs  ran  a very  close  race  for  final  premiation, 
and  the  four  selected  were  only  obtained  after 
thorough  and  careful  consideration,  and  their  long- 
continued  analysis  and  discussion  by  all  the  members 
of  the  Jury. 

In  regard  to  the  six  drawings  whose  authors  have 
received  mention,  the  Jury  feel  that,  while  they 
endeavored  to  select  these  with  quite  as  great  care 
as  the  prize  designs  and,  as  a result  ol  the  consider- 
able amount  of  talent  and  ingenuity  displayed  by  a 
number  of  the  other  competitors  and  the  fact  that 
many  of  the  second  ten  are  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
quite  as  good  as  some  of  those  finally  selected  for 
official  mention,  the  Publishers  of  The  Architec- 
tural  Review  have  been  requested  to  include  in 
their  publication  of  the  Competition  an  assortment 
from  the  twenty  designs  which  did  not  receive 
mention  or  prize,  in  the  endeavor  to  show  the  wide 
variety  of  choice  from  which  the  judges  made  their 
selection,  and  also  to  give  the  designers  who  developed 
such  individual  ideas  so  interestingly  at  least  the 
recognition  and  satisfaction  of  seeing  their  work 
preserved  in  print. 

If  any  general  suggestions  are  to  be  made  by  the 
Jury,  it  would  be  to  encourage  the  competitors 
always  to  stud}7  their  problem,  and  their  material, 
so  far  as  possible  with  the  object  of  obtaining  a fresh 
and  individual  design,  of  which  unusual  and  refresh- 
ing quality  at  least  two  of  the  prize  designs  partake 
in  a very  successful  manner.  If  any  of  the  com- 
petitors appeared  to  disadvantage,  it  was  in  the 
case  of  those  who  had  chosen  to  develop  a design 
along  some  already  well  known  and  established 
type, — such  as  was  provided  by  English  Classical 
domestic  precedent,  for  instance, — when,  in  the 
mere  endeavor  to  make  their  selection  with  the 
utmost  care,  the  Jury  were  compelled  to  consider 
such  designs  as  a group,  in  which  case  only  those 
that  had  best  solved  the  problem,  both  in  plan  and 
design,  in  that  particular  group  earned  their  admit- 
tance to  the  final  ten  designs  from  which  the  prize- 
winners were  finally  selected. 

The  Jury  also  regretted  to  find  so  few  competitors 
who  had  worked  out  their  problem  of  the  relation 
of  the  house  to  the  lot  in  any  thorough,  consistent, 
or  understanding  manner.  An  inside  lot  was  pur- 


posely adopted  both  because  of  its  being  more 
prevalent  under  actual  conditions,  and  also  because 
it  offered  particular  difficulties — as  well  as  oppor- 
tunities— for  the  more  conscientious  and  thoughtful 
designer.  A number  of  competitors  altogether 
ignored  the  opportunity  thus  to  study  the  lot  as  a 
part  of  the  plan  of  the  house.  Others  did  not  give 
sufficient  consideration  to  the  grade  relations,  and 
the  location  of  the  house  in  relation  to  the  points  of 
the  compass;  while  by  far  the  greater  majority 
altogether  ignored  the  lot  plan,  many  failing  even  to 
locate  the  house  in  any  particular  position  upon  the 
site;  while  others  utilized  a plan  arrangement 
obviously  unadapted  to  an  inside  lot,  or  only 
possible  on  a corner  lot  with  two  entrance  frontages. 

Fhe  Jury  believe  that  even  the  most  modest  and 
unpretentious  house  should  be  designed  from  the 
“lot  line  in" — as  is  always  the  case  with  the  most 
successful  and  individual  dwellings!  Hence  the  lot 
described  was  intentionally  given  somewhat  greater 
area  than  is  customarily  allowed  in  the  usual  real- 
estate  development  scheme,  on  purpose  to  point 
this  opportunity  both  to  the  quondam  designer  and — 
incidentally — to  the  real-estate  promoter  besides! 

Immediately  on  assembling,  the  Judges  also 
decided  to  include  a dozen  or  more  plans  which, 
through  the  apparent  neglect  or  inefficiency  of  the 
various  express  companies,  had  arrived  the  morning 
following  the  date  of  closing  of  the  Competition; 
and  further,  in  a few  cases  where  the  assessor 
engaged  in  checking  the  area  of  the  houses  varied 
his  figures  slightly  from  those  submitted,  but  yet 
did  not  exceed  the  established  limit  by  more  than 
a few7  feet,  the  Jury  decided  to  admit  that  design 
and  judge  it  quite  as  though  it  had  met  with  the 
exact  requirements  of  the  Competition. 

A certain  amount  of  latitude  was  also  permitted 
in  considering  these  houses  from  the  point  of  view 
of  the  element  of  cost,  as  it  wras  obvious  that,  with 
even  the  more  pretentious  designs,  the  element  of 
variation  of  cost  because  of  the  outer  face  of  the 
walls  being  made  of  limestone  wrnuld  not  exceed 
over  four  or  five  per  cent  of  the  total  cost  of  the 
building.  So,  in  the  case  of  those  wrho  did  not  too 
far  exceed  the  stipulations  of  the  program,  either  in 
regard  to  area  or  apparent  cost,  the  Judges  w7ere 
glad  to  consider  their  designs  on  their  merits  of 
architectural  plan  and  elevation,  combined  with  an 
intelligent  use  of  the  material. 

If  any  one  conclusion  is  evident  or  possible  of 
being  deduced  from  the  results  of  this  Competition, 
it  is  a rather  regrettable  feeling  that  so  many  among 
these  competitors  failed  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
opportunity  to  develop  their  solutions  of  this  com- 
paratively fresh  problem  writh  that  originality  and 


5 


distinction  that  was  clearly  suggested  in  the  program.  uninteresting,  besides  generally  failing  to  be  con- 
it was  also  rather  surprising  to  find  that,  with  sistently  harmonious  in  style  with  the  elements 

comparatively  few  exceptions,  so  many  of  the  comprising  the  remainder  ol  their  design.  The 

competitors  failed  to  employ  limestone  satisfactorily  treatments  suggested  by  the  competitors  for  the 

in  their  accompanying  mantel  designs  with  the  limestone  floors  in  hallways  and  vestibules  also 

desired  amount  of  originality,  interest,  and  success;  seldom  display  appreciation  of  the  possibilities  for 

while  it  was  especially  noticeable  that  most  of  the  effective  treatment  latent  in  the  opportunity  thus 

interiors  shown  were  regrettably  commonplace  and  provided  by  the  program. 


An  Appreciation 

1st  Prize:  The  design  given  first  prize,  No.  42, 
the  Judges  considered  as  easily  expressing  the  best 
and  most  intelligent  regard  for  the  combined  decora- 
tive and  structural  employment  of  limestone. 
Certainly  this  design  could  not  be  translated  success- 
fully into  any  other  available  building  material. 
The  author  is  also  to  be  congratulated  on  his  strict 
adherence  to  the  program,  not  the  least  part  of 
which  was  the  obvious  merit  of  the  design  in  being 
the  most  economical  use  possible  for  the  material, 
limestone,  veneered  in  this  frankly  logical  fashion 
upon  the  face  of  the  structural  wall  of  a simply 
arranged  parallelogram.  The  plan  was  one  of  the 
simplest,  most  economical,  and  most  livable  among 
those  submitted,  with  particularly  good  fenestration, 
and,  in  arrangement,  design,  and  detail,  exhibited 
a strict  consideration  on  the  part  of  the  competitor 
of  the  established  limit  of  cost. 

One  considerable  element  ol  economy  would  con- 
sist in  the  fact  that  practically  all  the  stone  required 
by  this  house  could  be  cut  and  finished  at  the  works, 
and  all  the  limestone  is  used  absolutely  as  “ashlar,” 
i.  e.,  designed  in  thin  slabs  facing  a solid  wall  con- 
struction, without  imitating  a structural  relation  to 
the  wall  behind — which  does  not,  actually,  exist! 
This  competitor  also  employed  varying  textures  in 
his  stone  surface  with  great  intelligence  and  origi- 
nality. In  addition  to  the  simplicity  and  distinction 
of  the  design,  the  drawings  themselves  are  to  be 
regarded  as  having  been  rendered  in  an  excep- 
tionally beautiful  and  workmanlike  manner. 

2nd  Prize:  The  second  prize,  or  No.  117,  shows 
the  material  used  legitimately,  and  in  a totally 
different  type  of  architectural  design.  The  composi- 
tion is  here  original  and  picturesque.  This  scheme 
is  very  domestic,  and  could  not  possibly  be  mistaken 
for  anything  else  than  a private  house.  The  scale 
is  also  both  delicate  and  beautiful, — perhaps  a little 
too  small  for  actual  practical  development.  The 
scheme  would  undoubtedly  appear  to  better  advan- 
tage on  a house  of  somewhat  larger  size.  The  style 
has  been  handled  with  absolute  knowledge,  sym- 
pathy, and  competence,  and  the  plan  is  both  attrac- 
tive and  intimate,  being  precisely  the  sort  of  a house 


of  the  Prize  Designs 

one  would  delight  to  live  in.  The  drawings  are  also 
very  minutely  and  beautifully  drawn,  with  appar- 
ently precise  understanding  and  knowledge  of  the 
requisite  type  of  detail  to  accompany  this  general 
scheme. 

3rd  Prize:  The  third  prize,  No.  30,  is  regarded 
as  one  of  the  most  intelligent  and  original  plans 
brought  out  in  the  entire  competition.  The  author 
has  chosen  to  incorporate  a garage — not  required 
in  the  program — into  his  design,  and  has  corre- 
spondingly condensed  his  floor  area  in  the  endeavor 
to  keep  the  entire  structure  down  as  nearly  as 
possible  to  the  established  limit  of  cost.  He  has 
further  made  full  use  of  his  garage  as  an  important 
element  in  the  exterior  handling  of  his  design,  as 
well  as  an  integral  element  in  the  plan  arrangement. 
The  success  of  the  plan  comes  largely  from  the  daring 
disposition  of  the  drive  to  the  garage,  and  the 
brilliant  adaptation  of  the  entire  plan  to  a staircase 
established  at  the  very  back  of  the  building,  with 
the  corresponding  compactness  in  the  location  of 
the  principal  rooms  across  the  front  that  it  was 
then  possible  to  produce.  The  second-story  plan 
is  not  so  good  as  the  first.  Without  the  necessity 
of  carrying  the  staircase  to  the  attic  story,  it  could 
easily  and  obviously  have  been  improved. 

The  exterior  is  a fine  composition,  with  excep- 
tionally successful  fenestration,  while  the  whole  is 
most  strictly  to  be  considered  as  a design  for  Indiana 
Limestone,  although  it  must  be  confessed  that  it 
is  not  the  most  economical  use  of  limestone,  because 
of  the  very  considerable  amount  required  on  the 
walls  inside  the  porches  and  outside  the  walls  of 
the  garage.  For  this  reason  only,  this  design  was 
not  alloted  the  second  prize,  for  which  it  was  first 
considered  by  the  Jury.  A house  of  this  sort  would 
undoubtedly  appeal  most  attractively  to  the  owner, 
while  the  architectural  eye  could  not  help  but  notice 
the  unusual  and  original  treatment  of  the  walls  at 
either  end  of  the  terrace,  where  the  structural  end 
wall  of  the  house  has  been  accepted — and  utilized — 
by  the  designer  as  a valuable  adjunct  extended  to 
bound  and  enclose  the  terrace.  In  this  way  he 
made  it  possible  to  arrange  the  two  pavilions  com- 


6 


prising  the  garage  and  porch,  which  otherwise  would 
be  found  somewhat  too  nearly  clear  of  and  unrelated 
to  the  small  block  of  the  main  house.  This  novel 
treatment  is  original,  structurally  sound,  and  artisti- 
cally significant,  while  the  drawings  are  beautifully 
made  and  accompanied  by  admirably  rendered  and 
thought-out  details. 

4th  Prize:  The  fourth  prize,  No.  64,  is  perhaps 
the  most  domestic  in  effect  of  all  those  submitted. 
It  is  engaging,  distinguished,  colloquial,  and  finished 
in  its  composition  of  voids  and  solids,  and  absolutely 
independent  of  unnecessary  or  extraneous  embellish- 

A Criticism  of  the 

1st  Mention:  No.  100  is  a truly  admirable  scheme, 
very  beautifully  presented.  The  plan  is  compact  and 
definite,  although  it  would  not  make  an  entirely  satis- 
factory house  for  everyone,  because  it  contains  only 
one  staircase.  While  it  is  sometimes  necessary  to 
eliminate  a back  staircase  on  account  of  expense  and 
the  consequent  necessity  of  reducing  the  area  to  be 
covered  by  the  dwelling,  it  would  seem  that  a back 
stair  arrangement  of  some  sort  should  be  considered 
almost  as  an  essential  in  a house  for  a family  with 
aspirations  towards  a limestone  dwelling!  While  it 
is  true  that  the  third  prize  design  also  has  only  a 
single  staircase,  both  from  its  unusual  location  and  the 
exceptional  privacy  given  its  service  start,  this 
arrangement  is  there  made  as  endurable  and  con- 
venient as  is  possible.  The  entrance  arrangement 
is  indirect  and  a little  congested.  The  exterior 
presents  an  original  and  beautiful  scheme,  with 
perfectly  rendered  and  with  most  intelligently  con- 
sidered details.  The  designer's  apparent  inability 
to  restrict  his  artistic  tendencies  to  a point  where 
he  could  have  maintained  a greater  consistency 
between  these  very  simple  plans  and  the  more  pre- 
tentious exterior  design  lost  him  his  chance  at  a 
higher  award,  which  the  Jury  felt  it  could  not, 
under  the  circumstances,  conscientiously  allot  him. 
With  a simpler  and  less  expensive,  but  an  equally 
appropriate  exterior,  this  design  might  easily  have 
won  high  place  among  the  prize  designs.  As  it  is, 
it  should  undoubtedly  be  considered  as  among  the 
five  designs  which  the  Jury  believe  to  be  obviously 
better  than  all  the  others  submitted. 

2nd  Mention:  No.  103  is  to  be  regarded  as  a most 
gentlemanly,  self-respecting,  and  refined  type  of 
dwelling.  Although  not  necessarily  a design  to  be 
carried  out  in  or  exclusively  appropriate  to  limestone 
(it  would  as  a matter  of  fact,  be  equally  good  in  a 
brick  or  stuccoed  masonry  wall,  with  stone  trim- 
mings), the  plan  is  simple  and  satisfactory’,  and  the 
design  is  shown  by  a very  beautiful  drawing,  while 
the  author  expresses  an  adequate  knowledge  of  detail, 


ments.  It  is  a beautifully  simple  and  consistent 
study  in  proportion  and  composition,  accomplished 
without  placing  any  reliance  on  superfluous  orna- 
ment. Again  this  is  scrupulously  considered  as  a 
problem  in  limestone  design,  and  the  result  is  a most 
reasonable  and  practical  conception  of  the  whole 
problem.  The  plan  is  especially  personal,  intimate, 
and  yet  simple;  while  the  whole  house  is  presented 
by  the  most  excellently  rendered  drawings,  and  the 
most  intelligent  and  competent  details  are  also 
consistently  employed  throughout  the  handling  of 
the  design. 

Designs  Given  Mention 

the  mouldings  being  of  an  unusual  simplicity  and 
effectiveness. 

3rd  Mention : No.  89,  this  design  is,  also,  not  neces- 
sarily limited  to  execution  in  limestone.  It  certainly 
could  equally  well  be  carried  out  with  the  central 
motive  of  stone,  with  wings  of  brickwork  trimmed 
with  stone.  The  design  is  extremely  personal,  good 
in  proportion,  and  with  successful  fenestration.  The 
plan  is  not  entirely  convincing.  It  is  perhaps  to  be 
criticised  for  being  a little  arbitrary  and  eccentric,  and 
lacking  in  directness  and  simplicity.  The  drawings 
are  excellently  presented,  but  the  detail  is  hardly  up 
to  the  high  standard  established  by  the  treatment 
of  the  remainder  of  the  design. 

4th  Mention:  No.  3 is  an  admirable  example  of 
the  best  modern  type  of  English  work.  The  acces- 
sories of  gates,  posts,  etc.,  are  perhaps  somewhat  out 
of  scale  with  the  remainder  of  the  design,  making  it 
look  rather  unfortunately  like  the  gate-house  to  a 
gentleman’s  park  and  the  design  would  appear  better 
with  these  omitted.  The  plan  is  strikingly'  direct. 
The  geometrical  balance  and  distribution  of  parts 
throughout  both  sheets  of  drawings  is  an  unusual 
and  interesting  element.  The  detail  is  competent, 
and  the  whole  design  is  to  be  regarded  as  a fine, 
vigorous,  and  effective  treatment  of  its  chosen  style. 

6th  Mention:  No.  55  is  particularly  to  be  com- 
mended for  its  beauties  of  composition  and  draughts- 
manship, the  whole  making  as  beautiful  and  satis- 
factory drawings  as  have  been  submitted  in  the 
competition.  The  drawings  show  a perfectly  reason- 
able use  of  limestone,  and  although  the  author 
indicates  by  the  variety  and  texture  of  the  material 
on  his  perspective  that  he  understands  its  possibilities. 
The  design  would  be  equally  good  and  effective  if  the 
walls  were  built  of  other  material  trimmed  with 
limestone.  It  was  a gratification  to  the  Jury  to  see, 
and  have  an  opportunity  to  appreciate,  such  excep- 
tional understanding  of  the  psychological  value  of 
the  suggestive  use  of  the  composition  of  lines  in 


adding  effectiveness  to  the  perspective.  This  design 
should  also  be  highly  recommended  for  the  simplicity 
of  its  exterior  treatment.  W hile  the  Jury  realized 
its  possibilities  tor  certain  sites,  they  still  do  not  feel 
it  to  be  of  quite  as  general  or  practical  use  as  most  of 
the  other  plans  obtained  in  this  competition. 


Note: — No.  31,  the  Fifth  Mention  Design,  a fine 
piece  of  draughtsmanship,  is  omitted  from  this 
volume  because  of  its  eccentric  character  (termed 
theatric  by  the  Jury)  involving  irregularities  of 
plan  and  elevation  and  certain  illogical  construction 
features. 


Brief  Comment  on  the  Other  Published  Designs 

From  the  Report  of  the  Jury 


No.  12  indicates  an  endeavor  to  combine  a little 
"too  much  architecture”  for  the  plan  and  bulk  of 
the  building.  The  result  resembles  a one-story  house 
with  the  bed  rooms  placed  in  the  roof.  While  eco- 
nomical of  limestone,  this  introduces  an  element  ot 
second-story  sloping  ceilings  which  would  not  be  ap- 
preciated by  many  American  families.  It  rather 
suggests  "a  pavilion  in  a French  park,”  and  the  idea 
is  engaging  and  attractive  trom  the  element  of 
novelty  it  contains. 

Publisher’s  Note: — This  design  could  be  greatly  improved  by 
raising  the  cornice  and  roof  lines. 

No.  14  would  have  had  a higher  rating  but  for  the 
fact  that  it  exceeded  the  prescribed  area  limit.  The 
plans  and  elevations  also  fail  to  agree  in  exact  arrange- 
ment of  certain  features  of  the  design,  which  could 
easily  be  corrected.  It  is  sufficiently  effective, 
however,  to  recognize  and  commend  and  because  of 
its  very  effective  plan,  win  reproduction.  The 
perspective  shows  a fine  exterior  composition,  but 
the  details  are  not  based  on  the  best  work  used  as 
precedent. 

No.  47.  This  design  is  perhaps  better  adapted  to  a 
small  library  or  fraternity  house,  being  hardly 
domestic  in  style.  Unquestionably  a stone  design, 
of  an  excellent  type  but  requiring  careful  handling  in 
scale  and  detail,  in  order  to  be  successful  in  execution. 

No.  61  consists  of  a dignified  exterior  arrangement 
of  voids  and  solids,  without  striking  originality  in 
treatment.  The  details  are  not  quite  as  good  as  in 
some  other  designs. 

No.  76.  This  design  is  based  upon  an  economical, 
somewhat  crowded,  plan.  The  exterior  is  of  effective 
proportions,  and  excellent  workmanship  and  feeling 
are  evidenced  in  the  careful  relationship  established. 
However,  it  is  not  considered  a design  exclusively 
for  limestone.  The  perspective  certainly  does  not 
do  full  justice  to  the  excellent  proportions  and 
architectural  quality  apparent  in  the  elevations. 

No.  81  is  a good  plan,  with  an  effective  exterior, 
well  presented,  but  with  an  unfortunate  and  struc- 
turally unsound  use  of  a heavy  segmental  arch  over 
the  porch,  insufficiently  balanced  by  a pergola  upon 


the  opposite  end,  which  is  out  of  key  with  the  whole 
English  cottage  scheme  of  the  building. 

Publisher's  Note: — With  the  removal  of  the  objectionable 
porch  feature,  replacing  same  by  a porch  more  in  keeping  with 
the  design  and  which  will  balance  the  pergola,  this  is  a most 
excellent  type  of  design  for  the  moderate  size  home  and  is  one 
that  may  be  built  with  equal  effectiveness,  either  entirely  of 
Limestone  or  of  rough  fieldstone,  rubble,  or  even  brick  trimmed 
with  Limestone. 

No.  86.  One  of  the  most  agreeable  and  pleasing  of 
the  designs  incorporating  French  characteristics,  with 
especially  interesting  fenestration  and  a carefully 
handled  entrance  motive.  The  cornice  indicates  a 
simple  and  inexpensive,  yet  effective,  stone  treatment. 

No.  107  seems  better  calculated  for  the  use  of 
rubble  treatment,  rather  than  that  of  ashlar  face, 
limestone.  The  material  designated  at  the  quarry- 
plant  or  as  “odds  and  ends”  could  be  employed  in 
this  design,  and  the  treatment  is  therefore  to  be 
approved  as  indicating  an  unusual  yet  legitimate  use 
of  the  chosen  material.  The  scale  is  nicely-  domestic 
and  the  composition  graceful  and  satisfactory,  with 
the  exception  of  the  too  small  sizes  of  the  stone 
blocks  as  indicated  in  the  perspective. 

No.  135  shows  an  unusual  but  good  first-floor  plan, 
accompanied  by-  a poorly  drawn  perspective  with  a 
somewhat  over  accented  entrance  motive.  The  use 
of  columns  on  either  side  and  on  the  porch  is  con- 
sidered both  pretentious  and  rather  expensive.  The 
motor  entrance  indicated  in  plan  and  section,  is  a 
very  effective  and  convenient  feature  of  the  house, 
although  it  has  only  been  obtained  at  the  cost  of 
expensive  grading  and  most  regrettably-  cutting  up 
the  entire  front  portion  of  the  lot!  In  other  words, 
while  this  scheme  might  be  suitable  to  certain  con- 
ditions of  site  and  contour,  it  is  here  incorporated  only 
by-  working  against  natural  conditions. 

No.  142.  Outside  the  over-large  and  somewhat 
pretentious  porch  motive,  this  house  presents  an 
essentially-  simple  treatment  of  the  material,  after  an 
evidently  inexpensive  fashion;  though  one  perhaps 
rather  more  suggestive  of  a coarse  stone  like  granite 
than  limestone,  however.  Also  sloping  ceilings  would 
occur  in  the  second-story. 

Publisher's  Note:- — This  could  be  modified  by  raising  the  roof 
line  somewhat  higher  without  detriment  to  the  design  and  by  a 
little  rearrangement  of  the  second-story  plan  that  would  eliminate 
all  objectionable  effects  of  the  sloping  roof  design  in  the  second- 
storv  rooms. 


8 


No.  42.  FIRST  PRIZE  DESIGN.  ALFRED  FELLHEIMER  & STEWARD  WAGNER.  NEW  YORK  CITY 


!) 


design  fora  detac/dedlfsidence  of Indiana  limestone. 


No.  42.  FIRST  PRIZE  DESIGN.  ALFRED  FELLHEIMER  & STEWARD  WAGNER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


10 


DE5J6  N ■FOPL-Ar'CETTCHEP  EESTDENCE-OF  1NDJANA.-TJME-5IDNE 

SUB/AITT-Ep  - BY'  /S. 

- - ■ ■ { I jj  - -I 


1.1  VI  NG  • 


IOC*. 

L 


•-F-1R.-S.PI ACE  3 -E  CON  T>  --T  LOOK  T>  1.  A M 


No.  117.  SECOND  PRIZE  DESIGN.  ROBERT  A.  TAYLOR,  WEST  COLLINGSWOOD.  N.  J. 


11 


D"ETA1  L.-CTF -MAIM-  ENTRANCE 

k — ■ . i - 


DESIGN  -FOR.- A'TOACHED  'RESIDENCE-CF-INDIAA-'LJMESTCNE. 

S U C>AM  TT"E.D  • B Y * /\ 


No.  117.  SECOND  PRIZE  DESIGN.  ROBERT  A.  TAYLOR,  WEST  COLLINGSWOOD,  N.  J. 


12 


I - 'X)i  lQ 
<0 

cm  — 


Ck? 


<c 


o 


Ll! 


O 


uU 


Z Q i 


o o 


< 


< 


e/: 


uJ 


uJ 


C/3 


Q 


c/3 


uJ 


Ll_] 


puj  i_ 


O < 0 O.G 


<C 


Q 


IOhOh 


N».  30.  THIRD  PRIZE  DESIGN  L .1  MAIER.  THOS  EWING  KING  & GEORGE  H ERARD.  rOLEDO.  OHIO 


No.  30.  THIRD  PRIZE  DESIGN.  E.  J.  MAIER,  TI IOS.  EWING  KING  & GEORGE  II  ERARD,  TOLEDO,  OHIO 


ARIA.- 


14 


No.  64.  FOURTH  PRIZE  DESIGN.  OLAF  WILLIAM  SHELGREN,  BUFFALO. 


15 


No.  64.  FOURTH  PRIZE  DESIGN.  OLAF  WILLIAM  SHELGREN.  BUFFALO, 


16 


iv. 


' L V 

L- 


ftcdtUum 

it-ov  i i<r 


DINING  RO>M 
13'  X 16' 


— <l_or  Cwuu>f.n 


LIVING  ROOM 
15’ X E-V6'* 


BedRoufTi 


Bed  Room 

lfc'-rf*  15  0’ 


SECON  D 
FLOOR. 


6u&K»iTtr  Fv- 


The  Living  HoomAYant 


■ - ' \ 

m 

1 P^Vlll*7 

t 

. 7X6'  | 

KITCHEN  (1 

— j 12-6X15'  j_j 

■ 1 1 ' 1 

^ * 1 

j 1 cjos  1 , , J-xl— r- 1— 

FpHttiT. 

L ^ m 

H Bed  Room  1 

Ffj  ll*X  »3’  Ll 

u 

■ rc  ' 

■ ■■ 

if 

gijffi 

J rr 
! W*i 

jBllgfe 

No.  100.  FIRST  MENTION  DESIGN.  O.  R.  EGGERS.  NEW  YORK  CITY 


17 


No.  100.  FIRST  MENTION  DESIGN  O.  R.  EGGERS.  NEW  YORK  CITY 


Gar.  din  Si  nr 


i.vrfefc 


TTRIM  10  FT,  COARSE  SAND  RUBBED 
EXCEPT STJACE  BETWEEN  PILASTER.  1 ' 

AND  WINDOW  TRIM. THIS  AXXY  BE  ft  CUT  _ 

-VslIL  \RTO  1ST  GANG  SAWED  WITH  STEEL  CHIPS  OR.  FILINGS  GIVING  TEXTIRE  AXPAA  VRSIF.R.  TONE 
AIL  STONE  TO  BE  TOP  LIMESTONE.  THE  .ASHLAR-  TO  BE  AS  VARIEGATED  AS  POSSIBLE  - - 


18 


No.  103.  SECOND  MENTION  DESIGN.  ALFRED  COOKMAN  CASS,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


19 


« . . A. 


- 


ZX- 


M 

i i 

1 1 

i i 

V<(MS*OV<  C-’U-l-* 

NOTE 

.AU-rxrti^p«-a-,HfcSTCMi 
To  COAtit  CrtAv  AXD 
iMCErH  Tianb.6 


E1XVAT1GM  AT 

C Ct^M^cr-  ^■UlU'HCr 


SICTION 


ELEVATION  OF  MAIN  ENTRANT CE 


CD 


DESIGN  FOR  A DETACHED 

OT  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


C-TDDN Cr  COv-SM- 


No.  103.  SECOND  MENTION  DESIGN.  ALFRED  COOKMAN  CASS.  NEW  YORK  CITY 


20 


DESIGN  FORA  PE7ACHE.D  RESIDENCE 
OF  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


No.  89.  THIRD  MENTION  DESIGN  ALBERT  HARKNESS.  FLUSHING,  L.  I. 


No.  89.  THIRD  MENTION  DESIGN  ALBERT  DARKNESS.  FLUSHING.  L I. 


22 


No.  3.  FOURTH  MENTION  DESIGN.  SEPTIMUS  WARWICK,  MONTREAL,  CANADA 


23 


No.  3.  FOURTH  MENTION  DESIGN.  SEPTIMUS  WARWICK,  MONTREAL,  CANADA 


24 


No.  55.  SIXTH  MENTION  DESIGN  RUSSELL  BARR  WILLIAMSON,  KANSAS  CITY,  MO. 


No.  55.  SIXTH  MENTION  DESIGN.  RUSSELL  BARR  WILLIAMSON,  KANSAS  CITY.  MO. 


26 


ELEVATION  OF  LIMESTONE 
MANTE.L  IN  UVINQ  fcOOM 


F W 

• 

• 

J 

/i 

i 

_LI 

F1R3T  FLOOR  PLAN 


DESIGN  FOR  A DETACHED  RESIDENCE 

OF  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


No.  76.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  JERAULD  DAHLER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


NORTH-WEST  ELEVATION 


DESIGN  FORA  DETACHED  RESIDENCE 

OF  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


No.  76.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  JERAULD  DAHLER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


28 


No.  86.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  DANIEL  NEILINGER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


2<> 


No.  86.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  DANIEL  NEI LINGER,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


30 


v * 


'SECOND  • fLOOR. 


IS 

. r i 

_ljg_ 

FIRST  • FLOOR. 

• soli  • or-  *«.**r*c*nvt  • 


h ?*■<  K H Mi  k KM?- 

• -Scale  or  - hjuu  » tLU'Arroni  • 


Detail -or  • Living  • Room  • fireplace 

• StALt 

r*^  ? » < “ 


-5lOE  • E.LEVATION 


Rear.  • Elevation 


Cross  • Section 


DESIGN  • FOR°  A 'DETACHED  • RESIDENCE  » OF  • INDIANA  • LIMESTONE  - 


No.  61.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  E.  A.  WIKANDER,  BROOKLYN.  N.  Y. 


31 


PROFILE  OF 
FIRE  PLACE 

ft 

Y 

T 

Q 

a 

A 

N 
D 

J 
E 
R 
R 

Y 

O PLOTPLAN  ° I ‘hi  eg'  111' 

BESEGM  FOB  A BETACMEB  RESIDENCE  OF  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


No.  142.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  ANTONIO  DI  NARDO  &l  J.  IVAN  DISE,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


32 


No.  135.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  CHARLES  MANNING  FOSTER.  NEW  YORK  CITY 


A0£T//  ELEMT/M 

yOw  riJUTOL  / 


sjr&^/rrEE  e/'  ® 


Z /y/A/C  EOO/tf  f/EEPlACE  ~ 


i<fn  for  a Detached  Residence  of  Indiana  Limestone 


No.  129.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  FRANK  T.  KEGLEY  & H.  SCOTT  GERITY,  LOS  ANGELES.  CAL. 


34 


>~~1  J"\  /^'■-M-' 


•PIUT-fLOOL-PLAN- 


CtOKT 

SECOND  FLOOK.  PLAN 


DESIGN  FOR 

A DETACHED  RESIDENCE  OF  INDIANA  LIMESTONE 


No.  47.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  FRANCIS  H.  CRUESS  & ROSWELL  F.  BARRATT,  NEW  YORK  CITY 


No.  107.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  GUY  STUDY  & M.  BOULCAULT,  ASSOCIATED.  ST.  LOUIS.  MO. 


36 


37 


DETACHED 


<¥g|> 


Y 


No.  12.  DESIGN  SUBMITTED  BY  L.  V.  LACY,  SKANEATELES,  N.  Y. 


38 


No.  14.  DESIGN  BY  R.  HALDANE  DOUGLAS,  PITTSBURGH,  PA. 


Comments  by  the  Publisher 


Indiana  Limestone  is  first  the  ideal  material  of 
which  to  face  or  build  the  entire  walls  ot  your  home 
but  even  though  you  decide  on  local  material  for 
the  field  of  the  walls  you  will  require  material  for 
the  trim,  if  the  design  ot  your  home  has  any  at  the 
usual  architectural  detail  upon  which  all  better 
type  designs  rely  for  the  expression  ol  character  and 
refinement.  Indiana  Limestone  is  also  the  ideal 
material  for  this  purpose.  No  other  material  can 
so  easily  be  wrought  into  the  required  shapes  and 
various  architectural  forms,  except  wood,  which 
requires  painting  and  is  therefore  not  a proper 
material  for  combining  with  enduring  masonry 
walls,  beyond  its  use  tor  doors  and  windows  and 
their  frames. 

Whether  your  walls  are  built  ot  rough  field  stone, 
rubble  masonry,  ashlar  or  local  stone,  brick  (either 
common  or  face  brick),  or  stucco  on  hollow  tile, 
you  should  have  the  sills  and  window  trim,  entrance 
features,  belt  courses,  porch  piers  or  columns  and 
any  wall  quoining,  pilaster  or  other  trim  and  certain 
cornice  members,  etc.,  of  this  fine  stone  which  gives 
just  the  right  contrast,  blending  perfectly  with  any 
of  these  other  wall  materials. 

Many  of  the  designs  illustrated  are  suitable  for 
building  the  walls  of  other  masonry  materials  com- 
bined with  Limestone  trim  tor  the  architectural 
features  and  detail. 


The  Plans  on  the  Preceding  Pages 

This  booklet,  Volume  27  of  the  Indiana  Limestone 
Library  is  the  result  ol  an  effort  to  demonstrate  in 
definite  form  the  fine  effects  that  can  be  obtained  in 
medium-priced  homes  built  of  Indiana  Limestone. 
The  Architectural  Review  (a  prominent  journal 
for  the  architectural  profession)  conducted  for  our 
association  a competition,  open  to  architects  and 
architectural  draughtsmen,  in  which  prizes  were 
offered  for  the  best  designs  for  a Detached  House  of 
Indiana  Limestone  of  moderate  size  and  cost. 

The  prizes  were  awarded  and  the  best  of  the  other 
drawings  were  selected  by  a jury  of  five  of  the  most 
prominent  architects  in  America.  You  can,  there- 
fore, appreciate  the  authoritative  character  of  these 
designs,  which  we  take  pleasure  in  presenting  for 
your  guidance  in  building  your  own  home. 

The  comments  contained  in  the  report  of  the 
Jury  of  Architects  being  of  a professional  character, 
do  not  attempt  to  point  out  in  detail  the  many 
excellent  features  of  these  designs,  or  the  convenient 
arrangement  of  the  floor  plans,  which  will  be  evident 
to  anyone  who  studies  them. 


For  instance  Designs  No.  14,  47,  64,  81,  107  and 
117  could  all  be  built  with  rough  field  stone  or  ran- 
dom ashlar  walling  with  Limestone  trim.  Designs 
No.  4,  61,  86,  96,  100  and  104  could  be  built  ol  brick 
with  Limestone  trim  and  Designs  No.  55,  64,  100 
and  104  lend  themselves  to  execution  in  stuccoed 
hollow  tile  with  Limestone  trim. 

Furthermore  a rather  thin  Limestone  ashlar  facing 
may  be  combined  with  a backing  of  hollow  tile 
giving  an  economical  permanent  masonry  wall  that 
has  many  advantages  for  residence  and  apartment 
wall  construction. 

If  your  home  is  of  the  simplest  sort  you  will  at 
least  want  Indiana  Limestone  window  and  door 
sills,  chimney  caps  and  other  utilitarian  features. 
And  in  order  to  grace  the  interior  of  even  the  smallest 
home  with  the  great  comfort  and  true  hospitality 
of  a real  open  fireplace,  you  should  have  an  Indiana 
Limestone  mantel  in  your  living  room,  library  or 
hall.  No  other  material  is  so  suitable  tor  this  purpose, 
whether  it  be  an  elaborately  or  delicately  carved 
mantel,  or  simple  moulded  fireplace  facing.  Indiana 
Limestone  mantels  will  be  found  in  most  of  the  better 
class  homes  as  well  as  in  clubs  and  more  pretentious 
buildings  throughout  the  country.  Several  excellent 
designs  for  simple  Limestone  mantels  are  illustrated 
accompanying  the  house  designs. 


How  to  Get  Indiana  Limestone 

Owing  to  the  circumstances  outlined  above  and 
to  the  central  location  of  the  quarries,  Indiana 
Limestone  is  regularly  shipped  to  all  parts  of  the 
United  States  and  Canada.  Stocks  of  it  are  kept  by 
stone-workers  in  nearly  every  large  and  medium- 
sized city  and  in  many  smaller  places.  You  should, 
therefore,  have  no  difficulty  in  obtaining  it. 

If,  for  any  reason,  it  is  not  readily  available  in  your 
locality,  or  if  it  seems  difficult  for  you  to  obtain  the 
desired  stone,  regardless  of  whether  your  require- 
ments be  large  or  small,  kindly  write  to  the 

Indiana  Limestone  Quarrymen’s  Association, 

P.  O.  BOX  400,  BEDFORD,  INDIANA, 
who  will  assist  you  and  endeavor  to  see  that  your 
requirements  are  properly  taken  care  of. 

This  association  is  always  glad  to  cooperate  in 
other  ways  with  intending  builders,  and  will  answer 
any  questions  and  give  advice  as  to  the  practicability 
of  Indiana  Limestone  for  any  particular  purpose 
and  furnish  specifications  and  information  regarding 
its  proper  and  economical  use. 


40 


Seal  of  the  University  of  Indiana  carved  in  Indiana 
Limestone  for  the  exterior  of  the  "Old  College 
Building"  in  1855,  which  wa9  later  removed  after  a 
fire  to  its  present  position  in  the  ornamental  hous- 
ing over  the  so-called  Rose  Well  on  the  University 
campus.  The  lettering  and  delicate  carving  still 
sharp  and  clear  and  the  stone  in  perfect  condition 
with  the  marks  of  the  stone  cutter's  tool  plainly 
visible  on  the  surrounding  surface,  after  sixty-five 
years  of  exposure  to  the  weather,  a proof  of  the 
durability  and  permanence  of  Indiana  Limestone. 


t 


Volume  27 — Series  "B" 


4th  Edition,  September  1922 


' 


% 


3£e  Nation's  Building  Stone 


